Unveiling the Unspoken: Key Revelations from the High-Stakes Judiciary Committee Showdown with Attorney General Merrick Garland

House Republicans and Attorney General Merrick Garland engaged in a heated exchange during a contentious hearing, providing a glimpse into the forthcoming Republican impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden. The focus of the inquiry centers around allegations involving his son, Hunter Biden.

Members of the Judiciary Committee from the Republican party interrogated Garland regarding the Justice Department's probe into Hunter Biden. They accused Garland and the special counsel assigned to the case, David Weiss, of acting in favor of the Bidens by presenting a plea agreement to Hunter Biden that ultimately unraveled due to examination by a judge.

Garland firmly rebuffed the criticisms, asserting that he had not meddled in the investigation and had provided Weiss with all the requested resources for the inquiry. Despite Republicans' frustration, he consistently refused to delve into the specific details of the probe.

Furthermore, he refrained from participating in any Republican assaults on special counsel Jack Smith's investigations into former President Donald Trump.

Heres what to know:

Republicans attacks on Garland preview impeachment inquiry

Republicans interrogated Garland regarding the investigation into Hunter Biden, which exposed their intention to scrutinize Hunter Biden's business transactions and link them to the president.

Congressman Jim Jordan, who leads the impeachment inquiry alongside two other committee chairs, blamed the Justice Department for failing to pursue legal action against Hunter Biden for tax discrepancies during his tenure on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

On Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 20, 2023, Jim Jordan, the Committee Chairman and United States Republican Representative from Ohio, addressed the House Committee on the Judiciary overseeing the operations of the US Department of Justice.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Fact check: Jim Jordan makes false claims about Trump, Hunter Biden to begin hearing on handling of the federal cases against them

Jordan asserted that the work carried out by Hunters at Burisma was connected to Joe Biden and his request for Ukraine to dismiss its prosecutor general. This is despite the fact that Biden was implementing a bipartisan US policy, as the prosecutor was neglecting to effectively address corruption, including at Ukrainian establishments such as Burisma.

According to Jordan, "The situation is rigged. It is undeniably rigged. Despite the recent attempt to save face through the indictment of Hunter Biden, it is widely known that the situation is rigged."

Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, grilled Garland, raising concerns about Hunter Biden's art sales. Gaetz underscored testimony from Devon Archer, an associate of Hunter Biden, suggesting that while working for Burisma and other clients, Hunter Biden was essentially "selling the impression of privileged access" to his father.

Garland stands firm: I did not interfere

Garland dismissed claims made by Republicans and an IRS whistleblower regarding the alleged political bias in the Hunter Biden investigation. He firmly stated that he did not intervene, conduct an investigation, or make any decisions regarding the Hunter Biden case.

Garland rebuked congressional Republicans in his opening statement, clarifying that he is neither the President's lawyer nor Congress' prosecutor. During the questioning, he refuted the allegations that US attorney-turned special counsel Weiss was limited to charging Hunter Biden only in Delaware rather than anywhere in the country.

House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer speaks to reporters on his way to a closed-door GOP caucus meeting at the US Capitol on January 10 in Washington, DC.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images North America/Getty Images

House Oversight panel set to hold first Biden impeachment inquiry hearing September 28

Garland declined to discuss the department's internal deliberations, but assured Weiss that he would have the freedom to pursue a case in any jurisdiction. He also refuted the notion that the process of charging Hunter Biden in another district was arduous.

"All I have to do" is sign an order, Garland said. "He had the authority because I promised he would have the authority."

Garland leans on Trumps appointment of Hunter prosecutor

Garland continually reiterated the same message, emphasizing that Weiss had been chosen by Trump and he kept Weiss in his position upon assuming office.

"I assured the Senate during my confirmation hearing that I would allow Mr. Weiss to continue his investigation without any interference," Garland reaffirmed.

Weiss was appointed by Trump as the US attorney for Delaware and initiated the investigation into Hunter Biden in 2018. Upon Biden assuming office, Weiss remained in his position to ensure the investigation's uninterrupted progress.

When questioned by Republicans about the specific aspects of the investigation, Garland deferred to Weiss, stating that he would be able to address those concerns. Furthermore, Garland mentioned that Weiss is anticipated to provide testimony before the panel in the upcoming month, affording lawmakers the opportunity to directly inquire from him.

"I deliberately refrained from delving into the specifics of the case, not as a means of evading accountability, but rather as a means of embracing my accountability," Garland explained.

But Garland doesnt say why Weiss was appointed as special counsel

Following the breakdown of Hunter Biden's plea deal earlier this summer, Weiss sought and obtained an appointment as special counsel last month. Last week, Weiss brought forth gun charges against Hunter Biden, who has expressed his intention to plead not guilty.

Garland faced repeated questioning regarding the timing of the appointment, which took place over four years into the ongoing investigation into Hunter Biden.

Republicans argued that Weiss's appointment by Trump was irrelevant. They asserted that the plea deal negotiated by Weiss and rejected by a judge exemplified his lack of trustworthiness in conducting a thorough investigation of the case. Garland refrained from discussing the details surrounding the appointment, only mentioning that Weiss had made the request.

Supervisory IRS Special Agent Gary Shapley provides testimony during a House Oversight Committee hearing pertaining to the Justice Department's probe into Hunter Biden, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on July 19, 2023.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Top IRS official latest witness to dispute allegations from whistleblower on Hunter Biden tax case

Garland's response failed to satisfy Republicans.

"Something has changed," Jordan claimed, questioning the reason behind Weiss requiring special counsel authority for charging when Garland had previously stated that he possessed all the necessary authorities.

"It's a straightforward question. If he already had it, why does he now necessitate it?" Jordan inquired.

Garland said that Weiss will be able to testify in the future: "You will at the appropriate time have the opportunity to ask Mr. Weiss that question."

Dems push back on Trump claims about politicized indictments

During the questioning from Democrats, Garland found respite in the back-and-forth discussions that revolved around defending the Hunter Biden investigation and the special counsels investigations into Trump. Rep. Adam Schiff asked Garland about Trump's remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press," where he referred to the charges brought against him by special counsel Smith in the classified documents and election interference investigations as "Biden political indictments." Trump also claimed that Biden instructed the attorney general to indict him.

"Did [Trump] speak the truth or did he deceive when he claimed that the president instructed you to press charges against him?" inquired Schiff.

"I have not received any guidance regarding who should be prosecuted in a situation like this, and the determination to indict was made by Mr. Smith," replied Garland.

Garland objects to question about religious discrimination

In addition, Democrats attempted to elicit Garland's opinion on matters concerning the Supreme Court and ethics, but he chose not to respond. They also requested an explanation from him regarding the potential consequences if the FBI were inadequately funded—an indirect criticism of House Republicans who advocate reducing the FBI's budget following the Trump indictments.

On Wednesday, a heated exchange took place as Garland faced questioning regarding potential improper targeting of Catholics based on their religious beliefs during his tenure at the Justice Department. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a Republican from New Jersey, asked Garland if "traditional Catholics are violent extremists." In response, Garland, whose family escaped anti-Semitic persecution in Eastern Europe, strongly rebutted the allegations.

Garland expressed his disagreement with the question.

Garland yelled, his voice visibly trembling, "The notion that a person from my family's background would discriminate against any religious beliefs is absolutely preposterous, to the point that I find it difficult to even respond to your question."

Van Drew retaliated with raised voice, "It was the FBI linked to you who perpetrated this act! They were discreetly placing agents inside Catholic churches."

"Both I and the director of the FBI were appalled by that memo," Garland said.

Van Drew repeatedly interrupted, asking: "Are they extremists or not?"

"Catholics are not extremists, no," Garland said, shaking his head.

CNNs Hannah Rabinowitz, Holes Lybrand, Zachary Cohen, Devan Cole, Casey Riddle and Abby Baggini contributed to this report.